Microsoft rep faces tough questions at Linux Summit

The Linux Collaboration Summit—which took place last week in San Francisco—primarily focused on the Linux platform, but one of the most vigorous discussions that took place during the event looked beyond the confines of the kernel and gave participants some insight into Linux's relationship with the broader operating system market.

The operating system roundtable discussion, which was called "Why Can't We All Just Get Along," included Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin, Sun community and developer vice president Ian Murdock, and Microsoft platform strategy director Sam Ramji.

Much of the discussion related to Microsoft and its rocky relationship with open source software. Ramji, who runs Microsoft's open source software lab and plays a role in influencing Microsoft's open source strategy, faced some tough questions from fellow panelists and the audience. He was not flustered by the inquisition and responded with cogent thoughts and some witty retorts.

He said that Microsoft's commitment to delivering compatibility with open source software is largely driven by user demand. Indeed, a growing number of companies are deploying Apache, PHP, and other open source software components on Windows-based servers. Microsoft seems to have noticed this trend and has been working to build closer ties with the Apache community. Microsoft joined the Apache Foundation last year and has already contributed some of its code to an Apache interoperability effort relating to service-oriented applications. Microsoft also adopted Apache's permissive open source license for its Web sandbox initiative instead of using one of its own two OSI-approved shared source licenses.

Ramji said that one of his roles is to educate people—both within and outside of Microsoft—about the importance of open source software to the Windows platform. There is no dichotomy between Microsoft and open source software, he claimed. He said that open source software offers an opportunity for Microsoft and should exist across all platforms. He also emphatically distanced himself from Microsoft's anti-Linux marketing campaigns and said that he doesn't support that approach to competition.

He expressed concern that critics of Microsoft wrongfully conflate Linux with open source. In his view, competition between Windows and Linux doesn't constitute opposition to the open source development model. He said that there is a lot of potential for collaboration between Microsoft and the broader open source software community on a wide range of interoperability issues if the major stakeholders can come together as technologists rather than ideologists.

Patent disagreement

The problem, however, is patents. In the past, Microsoft has refused to collaborate with certain vendors on interoperability issues and has forcefully said that it will not do so unless those vendors commit to intellectual property agreements. The nature of these agreements is intrinsically hostile to unencumbered downstream redistribution, and they are consequently viewed as unpalatable by many within the open source software community. Microsoft has since softened its position on this issue, but is still largely stonewalling on unencumbered interoperability.

When asked about the patent problem, Ramji said that individual patent concerns can be addressed one at a time, going forward. He said that Microsoft is in favor of certain patent system reforms and is often one of the biggest victims of patent abuse under the current system. Although it seems a bit distasteful for Microsoft to be playing the victim card in this case, it's true that Microsoft is a very frequent target of patent infringement litigation and has been forced to pay out an enormous amount of money in patent dispute settlements.

Although Ramji said that Microsoft stands behind the need for change in the patent system, he also stated that the company sees valid reasons for keeping software patents intact. Ramji cited university research as one example of an area where he believes that patents are encouraging technological progress.

His arguments in favor of software patents seem tenuous. The cost of litigation has vastly outstripped the revenue generated by software patent licensing since the 90s. It's also worth noting that the software industry, and Microsoft itself, was enjoying significant profit and growth before software patents had even been deemed permissible in the United States.

Ramji cited Microsoft's collaboration with the Samba project as an example of a situation where Microsoft encouraged interoperability by agreeing to license patents to an open source project under more permissive terms. That agreement, however, was practically mandated by the European Commission under the terms of its 2004 antitrust ruling against Microsoft. It seems unlikely that Microsoft would agree to such terms in the future if not forced to do so. The agreement also required key Samba developers to sign controversial nondisclosure agreements.

When members of the audience were invited to question the panelists, Samba developer Jeremy Allison stepped up to the microphone and criticized Microsoft's refusal to provide adequate clarity about which protocols can be safely implemented by third-parties without having to first obtain patent licenses. Ramji suggested that Microsoft's Open Specification Promise could potentially serve as a vehicle for providing clarity on the issue, but he acknowledged that Microsoft can and should do more to provide predictability about which of its technologies are covered by patents.

Allison concluded the friendly confrontation by walking up to the stage and giving Ramji an award. The certificate satirically refers to Microsoft as a FAT troll—a reference to the company's recent patent battle with Linux-based GPS vendor TomTom over patents that cover backwards compatibility features in Microsoft's FAT filesystem.

Although it's clear that Microsoft still has a lot of work to do if it wants to earn the trust of the open source software community, Ramji's presence at the event and participation in the panel reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue with the Linux community.

Zemlin, who criticized Microsoft during his keynote presentation earlier in the day, acknowledged that there is room for a productive—albeit somewhat antagonistic—relationship between Microsoft and the Linux community. Despite "fundamental disagreements," he says, they can keep each other honest.

While MS doesn't make much from its patent portfolio relative to the amount it has been sued for, the patent portfolio is a serious concern for anyone trying to compete. Plus it probably offers some antitrust immunity (very limited but every bit helps). So MS is not going to give up on all the patents it is filing (nor should it - since it is first it might as well enjoy the 20 years rather then give the ideas away for free). You will never have to worry unless you are selling a product for serious coin (becase MS isn't going to worry very much about the small fries). And if you are selling then you can afford to pay. The good thing (for many people anyways) is that it is expensive to keep track of what all the patents cover so most infringers are never caught.

Patents hurt open source software and businesses more than they hurt Microsoft, so while they might not like it and they might lose money paying out patent settlements, it is a net gain for them in terms of limiting competition. To put it in other terms, Microsoft has the money to waste defending against patent claims, they can't however afford to let other operating systems eat their lunch, which is what Linux is doing more and more as time goes on. Patent claims are a powerful tool in limiting Linux in the market.

Allison concluded the friendly confrontation by walking up to the stage and giving Ramji an award. The certificate satirically refers to Microsoft as a FAT troll...

Way to stay classy guys.

So, shall I sum this up:

OSS: Give us your IP! We want to use your tech without paying.MS: No. You guys hate us, and want to put us out of business. Why would we do that?OSS: You are such jerks. Freakin trolls.

Microsoft isn't just making it difficult to use protocols or other IP without licensing agreements, they're actively screwing with the protocols in their own software to make interoperability difficult. If you knew the history here with Samba, you would know why Jeremy Allison is unhappy with them.

OSS: Give us your IP! We want to use your tech without paying.MS: No. You guys hate us, and want to put us out of business. Why would we do that?OSS: You are such jerks. Freakin trolls.

A: There is no such thing as 'IP'. Nobody wants Microsoft's patents. Nobody wants Microsoft's copyright. They would just like the patents to go away.

B. Jeremy Allison spent his professional life developing software that worked with Microsoft's software. He fought his way through patent issues, FUD, closed sources, EULAs, taking existing protocols and changing how they worked slightly to break compatiblity, etc etc.

The guy is brilliant and knows more about how Windows and Windows networking works then most of the engineers at Microsoft do.

There were hundreds of barriers that Microsoft put up against competitors to prevent them from making compatible software. And he, along with other people working with the Samba project, defeated all of them.

They did this by packet sniffing and doing deep analyzing of network traffic.

Then after years and years of doing this and figuring out all the dozens of variations that Microsoft calls SMB (each OS they release uses a slightly different version) and having it all pretty much figured out... THEN Microsoft gives in to the EU and releases the documentation. There was not really much there that was not already known, it mostly served to verify existing knowledge.

If you spent years and years doing packet analysis of Microsoft's servers and understanding the bizzare and meaningless complexity and often seemingly purposeful inefficiencies of their network protocols.. then you too would earn a deep dark hatred for any thing related to MS.

And even then the guy still doesn't hate them.

He is just pointing out that after 15+ years of Microsoft's threats, lies, obsufcation, 'embrace and extend' methods, etc, etc, that all of a sudden them coming out and saying that they like open source... and then turning around and suing TomTom for using open soruce.. then again still coming out and saying how much they like open source.. is all a bit hypocritical.

His arguments are exactly in line with why patents in general exist- they encourage investment and research by allowing a limited monopoly on the results. The problem comes in with this binary interpretation of patents- we either have them or we don't. It's surprising that people can't be a little bit more nuanced than that. The problem with software patents is that they have been applied overly broadly and don't get subjected to the novel or obvious test, or really have any of the original constraints that were placed on the patent system. If I could patent the idea of moving people with some vehicle that uses wheels we would all be shouting to tear down the entirety of the patent system but largely it is only software patents that get such broad patents.

Things like specific encryption algorithms, media compression formats and the such show that some software patents make great sense. These are things that have a decent bit of research and development effort behind them and only pay for their development because they can be patented. a one click patent they are not. We certainly need to reform the patent system with regard to software patents- there are a lot of bad patents that inhibit rather than promote innovation- but I think it is naive to believe that in the absence of economic incentive research intensive solutions will receive the current investment.

quote:

and then turning around and suing TomTom for using open soruce

Way to not understand the lawsuit. It was a cross licensing dispute over each of the respective party's navigation patents, MS was using the 8.3 patent as added ammo to pressure TomTom into an agreement *AFTER* negotiations broke down. It was hardly them suing TomTom for using OSS- the 8.3 patents suck but were not by any means the focus of the litigation, just the focus of the over-reaction. The poor beset TomTom, tiny little multinational company that it is, is by no means a victim here. Just go look at how many patent tiffs they have started with Garmin and the other PND rivals- this was a pretty routine cross licensing dispute in an industry that is rife with such things. The only thing at all exceptional was that MS was involved and thus the assumption is that the more sinister the explanation, the more likely.

Incidentally, *some* navigation patents are among those that make sense. The navigation algorithms are by no means trivial but rather the work of years of research. They are not patents for stuff the dev just implemented out of hand while routinely writing code.

It's funny. Your grandmother is allowed to have her secret recipe for apple pie that everybody loves and wants. But nobody likes Microsoft keeping their software a secret. It's just interesting when you apply the logic to different scenarios.

As long as Microsoft is still the unified juggernaut it is, and Linux / OSS is broken up into camps, Microsoft will always be on top. Linux & OSS needs a unifying keystone ... sort of a figure-head distro or something that can stand along with Microsoft.

Personally, I think Linux/OSS & Microsoft need each other ... a lot. They drive each other to innovate. Sometimes in a friendly way, sometimes not. I think some of the best innovation has occurred through the heat of frustration.

Originally posted by Tundro Walker:It's funny. Your grandmother is allowed to have her secret recipe for apple pie that everybody loves and wants. But nobody likes Microsoft keeping their software a secret. It's just interesting when you apply the logic to different scenarios.

"Ramji's presence at the event and participation in the panel reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue with the Linux community."

No, it represents a PR opportunity for Microsoft, and nothing more.

mrsteveman1: "Patents hurt open source software and businesses more than they hurt Microsoft, so while they might not like it and they might lose money paying out patent settlements, it is a net gain for them in terms of limiting competition. To put it in other terms, Microsoft has the money to waste defending against patent claims, they can't however afford to let other operating systems eat their lunch, which is what Linux is doing more and more as time goes on. Patent claims are a powerful tool in limiting Linux in the market."

QFT. Patents represent a little friction for Microsoft and a serious wall for some potential competitors. That's a tradeoff they are very happy to accept.

I don't mind allowing seriously novel, non-trivial algorithms to be patented. I'm sure Microsoft has a few. Let Microsoft and others keep those patents and wipe out the thousands of trivial 8.3 workarounds and 'one click' garbage. When Ballmer has a set of solid patents that he can point to, then he should be able to warn off others. But claiming that the Linux kernel violates hundreds of patents is just anti-competitive saber rattling.

Originally posted by Evil_Merlin:Having met Jeremy Allison in person, he is indeed an arrogant punk.

Thats pretty subjective, and it doesn't really have any bearing on the story. The problem with software patents is that they are trying to protect a written language. Two authors can write a novel based on the same period in history without infringing on each other. However, patents extend a blanket of singularity around what they protect. This works fine for physical objects, but clashes with the ideas of protecting text. Software patents are just illogical and need to be removed from our system of IP.

Patents represent a little friction for Microsoft and a serious wall for some potential competitors

Potential competitors don't get hit for the sort of damages MS does. Microsoft was hit with $1.5 Billion in the MP3 dispute with lucent (fortunately for the whole industry, that has since changed under challenge), a potential $1 billion in a dispute over speech codecs with AT&T, $521 million with Eolas over a freaking obvious patent concerning embedded objects in browsers, and the list goes on. Legal costs alone outstretch the revenue of many of MS's smaller competitors. The mathematics seem pretty simple- MS produces more software than any other company, therefor just by the screwed up nature of software patents as they stand now infringes a greater number of times than competitors. They also are subject to greater damages given their market share. The current patent situation has to represent a greater liability than an asset for the company.

I'm not saying that MS can't reap royalties from competitors, but patents have very obviously constituted a bit more than a little friction for the company.

Also, their involvement with OSS is a bit more than a PR opportunity. The company is hardly a hegemony with a single minded devotion to Ballmer's direction. Most employees are a bit embarrassed by the big gorilla and would rather folks like Ray Ozzie called the shots. Certainly there are strong opponents of OSS in certain product groups- office has little to gain by being buddies with open office- but there are also plenty of product groups where OSS is actually in their benefit (Silverlight has more chance competing against flash if it is considered more open and friendly to everyone). For better or worse Microsoft does not operate in harmony with itself very often.

quote:

The problem with software patents is that they are trying to protect a written language.

Not by design- they should protect designs same as any other field. Would you argue that a hardware circuit that encrypts data with a specific algorithm should be patentable but not the soft implementation? Conceptually there really is no difference- bunch of ands and ors and data. I can patent formula for specific chemical compounds, how is that really any different?

Originally posted by drag:...knows more about how Windows and Windows networking works then most of the engineers at Microsoft do.

Utterly untrue. He knows quite a bit about SMB and NTLM. The same can be said for the dozens of other CIFS products. So far that has resulted in an NT4-comparable implementation of Samba that is roughly equivalent to early-mid 1990's technology (regardless of the reasons why, that's what Samba gives you, period). I don't think he would agree with your take either that he knows as much about Windows as MS engineers do, no matter how arrogant people here think he is (I don't know him). That's like saying someone knows more about a given Linux distribution than all the Linux developers - it's a ridiculous impossibility for anyone to know more than an minute fraction of hundreds of millions of lines of code. Ask him how much he knows about bitlocker, credential roaming, certificate authorities, ESE JET, group policy client side extensions, EFS, the KDC, RODC's, the kernel, WPF, Aero, AD powershell, the ISTG, FSRM, DFSR, DFSN, AD LDS, etc etc etc. Those are all part of Windows. Amongst thousands of other things. Silly.

Originally posted by Evil_Merlin:Having met Jeremy Allison in person, he is indeed an arrogant punk.

Thats pretty subjective, and it doesn't really have any bearing on the story. The problem with software patents is that they are trying to protect a written language. Two authors can write a novel based on the same period in history without infringing on each other. However, patents extend a blanket of singularity around what they protect. This works fine for physical objects, but clashes with the ideas of protecting text. Software patents are just illogical and need to be removed from our system of IP.

It isn't a written language, it's an algorithm. Some algorithms take huge amounts of r&d that need to be recouped. Pushing for reform is one thing but suggesting that software patents be eliminated is another. Complex algorithms that cannot be written overnight should be patented to encourage development. Compression, network optimization and multimedia codecs are good examples of where software development can benefit greatly from software patents. Remember also that patents do not last forever. The fat patent will actually expire in 2013.

In the case of TomTom they could have just paid the .25 cent per unit patent fee instead of trying to get MS to back down for p.r. reasons. TomTom has actually had record profits the past few years which makes their decision to try and use the patent without paying for it appear to be a serious lapse in judgment.

It really depends on the algorithm. Lets take encryption. You invent a new encryption algorithm and get a patent on it. As long as the patent is specific to your version of the algorithm I dont see a problem. However, you shouldnt be able to claim domain over all programs that implement encryption to create secure backups. One case is very specific, the other is fairly vague.

Also, I am not convinced that software patents have done anything to encourage development. If anything all I see is them holding back companies. Especially the small and grass root groups who aren't rich enough to license the patents or have patents to trade in a cross licensing deal.

Some algorithms take huge amounts of r&d that need to be recouped.... Compression, network optimization and multimedia codecs are good examples

Uh, what? Compression? Like LZMA? BZIP? Multimedia codecs? Like Ogg Vorbis and Dirac? How do you even come up with this shit? They have hardly any costs, at most a handful of people part-time, usually mere amateurs. And tons of incentive to innovate, i.e. a free market of competitive interests who want to inter-operate lest they become uncompetitive.

These patents are monopolistic in nature, killing both competition and the free market that sustains it. They don't help the enthusiasts, since these kinds of people tend to run into them more than they have any use of or right to claim their own. They don't help spur competition, because they're used as an anti-competitive bludgeon by consortiums of cross-licensing incumbents to keep anyone else out. It's insanely myopic to make groundless claims like yours when they're incomprehensible.

Originally posted by El Chupageek:... but patents have very obviously constituted a bit more than a little friction for the company.

It is a matter of perspective, I guess. Combined, all of the settlements and/or awards you just listed amount to less than one quarter's worth of profit for Microsoft. Relative to the risk that some startup (a Netscape or a Google, say) could create a new business model that supplants their near monopoly in the OS space, I would call those patent losses 'a little friction'.

quote:

Also, their involvement with OSS is a bit more than a PR opportunity. The company is hardly a hegemony with a single minded devotion to Ballmer's direction. Most employees are a bit embarrassed by the big gorilla and would rather folks like Ray Ozzie called the shots.

Tough for those employees then, because Ballmer is the one who calls the shots. And he wastes no opportunity to rattle his patent portfolio at Linux, clearly using it as a FUD tool. He's not breaking any laws in doing so, but it is a bit rich to say Microsoft is doing anything more than PR here in having someone talk at an OSS convention.

Unless you actually work for the company, I'd suggest that your take on how a company of 80,000+ operates is based more on your own religious feelings about the topic rather than any information based on reality. El Chupageek has it right on. There are so many technologies and parts of the company that there is no way everyone can be on the same page at the same time when dealing with such varied topics as this. There is a non-trivial segment of the company committed to Open Source as an avenue to enhance and protect current platforms. (i.e. Open Source is great if it means people still need/want Windows.)

"Ramji's presence at the event and participation in the panel reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue with the Linux community."

No, it represents a PR opportunity for Microsoft, and nothing more.

Your posts on arstechnica are PR ops and nothing more.

Oh wait, I take that back because I don't want to sound like a narrow minded @#$%.

quote:

Tough for those employees then, because Ballmer is the one who calls the shots. And he wastes no opportunity to rattle his patent portfolio at Linux, clearly using it as a FUD tool. He's not breaking any laws in doing so, but it is a bit rich to say Microsoft is doing anything more than PR here in having someone talk at an OSS convention.

Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, among other things. Do you think Ballmer, as a businessman, should encourage Linux to chip away at his company? IBM, Apple, et al only support OSS insofar as it helps their business. I'd venture to say that one or more individuals at Microsoft have realized the strategic advantages to OSS cooperation and participation at events like this are proof of that.

quote:

Originally posted by Lemurs:Unless you actually work for the company, I'd suggest that your take on how a company of 80,000+ operates is based more on your own religious feelings about the topic rather than any information based on reality. El Chupageek has it right on. There are so many technologies and parts of the company that there is no way everyone can be on the same page at the same time when dealing with such varied topics as this. There is a non-trivial segment of the company committed to Open Source as an avenue to enhance and protect current platforms. (i.e. Open Source is great if it means people still need/want Windows.)

Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, among other things. Do you think Ballmer, as a businessman, should encourage Linux to chip away at his company?

Personally, I think businessmen, just like all other citizens within a society under the rule of law, have an obligation to obey the law. As far as I'm concerned it can do what it likes so long as it fulfills its legal responsibilities. However, it has a long history of illegal and unethical activity activity.

Microsoft has repeatedly violated its legal obligations, and fallen foul of the highest courts in the land on two continents now.

No matter how much R&D goes into an algorithm, it's still math. It is still an expression of a law of nature. And the last time I checked, laws of nature cannot be patented. It's really a question of metes and bounds. How do you define the limits of a patent on algorithm? A few years ago, I read a great quote which summed up software patents well on Groklaw, to paraphrase: In the physical world, a patent on a method of building a bridge only deals with one method. In the software world, a patent on a method of building a software bridge is a patent on all methods because it's an idea.

To say that patents are needed to spur innovation, one only needs to look at the Linux kernel to see that is patently not so. A number of studies have come out, some recently, to suggest that the "winner-take-all" concept of encouraging innovation hasn't worked so well. James Bessen has done a lot of work to show that software patents actually reduce the amount of money spent on R&D. http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedpwp/03-17.html. He has done at least one study commissioned by the Federal Reserve in support of this idea. So, after reading a number articles and studies on the subject, I'm *convinced* that software patents are not required to encourage innovation, in fact they inhibit innovation.

As to Microsoft trying to be nice, so sorry. They have never tried to be nice. When they're smiling, they're pissing on your shoes. Ballmer comes from a Harvard business school "take no prisoners" ideology. Competition at any cost. Take a look at the MS Litigation page at Groklaw. We're talking Megabytes of testimony about MS sales people lying to customers about their competitors. If MS wants to be nice, they can stop lying about their competitors. They can stop lying to their competitors (RIP, Netscape, Novell, <insert your favorite dead competitor here>. When MS gloats about taking 96% of the netbook market what they're really saying is "we're going to make damn sure you have no choice but Microsoft." No love lost for MS here.

And there won't be any room for Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, this time. Microsoft will need Linux more than Linux needs Microsoft. If you don't agree now, it will only be a matter of time.

Originally posted by El Chupageek:Things like specific encryption algorithms, media compression formats and the such show that some software patents make great sense. These are things that have a decent bit of research and development effort behind them and only pay for their development because they can be patented. a one click patent they are not. We certainly need to reform the patent system with regard to software patents- there are a lot of bad patents that inhibit rather than promote innovation- but I think it is naive to believe that in the absence of economic incentive research intensive solutions will receive the current investment.

The trouble with software is that it talks to eachother, which means that network effects greatly expand the power granted to patent holders for patents that affect storage formats or communication protocols.

With other patents, I can compete with you by doing the same thing a different way, and the "outside" world doesn't have to know the difference. With patents on compression formats or encryption algorithms, I cannot interoperate (ie, compete) without paying you.

Originally posted by El Chupageek:Would you argue that a hardware circuit that encrypts data with a specific algorithm should be patentable but not the soft implementation?

Yes, I have and would. The device is patentable; the algo is not.

In fact, IMO, that is precisely what new court opinion states (see Bilski). Patents were created in order to protect the capital investment of the repeated manufacturing of a physical device, thus promoting the move from a conceptual idea to a sellable product.

In Bilski, the "paraphrased test" is that if you could think/step through the process being patented, albeit many orders slower than a computer, that that concept is not patentable. Arguably, the great majority of code fail this test miserably.

However, the particular physical arrangement of gates and other circuits is patentable; doesn't mean someone else can't come along with a different arrangement to achieve the same conceptual steps...

quote:

I can patent formula for specific chemical compounds, how is that really any different?

Because a novel chemical compound is a physical "thing", whereas software is not. The Pythagorean Theorem is likewise not patentable.

You patent chemical formulas to protect the business investing in the factories and labs necessary to make (not create) the product.

quote:

Originally posted by superslav223:Some algorithms take huge amounts of r&d that need to be recouped.

Okay, let's assume that the above is true, which NW debunked pretty well. In that case, design the best way to write that superduper algorithm in C, C++, Python and/or Java, then copyright each form if you want to horde it.

quote:

Remember also that patents do not last forever.

But, they do last much longer than the pace of software innovation and, coupled with their current broadness, create a terribly unhealthy competitive environment favoring big businesses. Most economists fall on the side that the current patent system is terribly anti-innovation...

No matter how much R&D goes into an algorithm, it's still math. It is still an expression of a law of nature. And the last time I checked, laws of nature cannot be patented.

While it is marginally true that algorithms are exempt from patents (it is more a theory than a practice), I disagree with the premise software is an expression of a natural law. When it comes down to it, pharmaceuticals are far closer to an expression of natural laws as the chemical designs and reactions are entirely dictated by said laws and is essentially all expressed in a form of math. I think that is a far greater expression of natural laws than something like an encryption algorithm which is a synthetic solution to a synthetic problem in a synthetic system, that happens to be expressed with math. It is a pretty big stretch to claim that the grammar and syntax of software constitute a natural law, but the grammar and syntax of chemistry does not.

quote:

With patents on compression formats or encryption algorithms, I cannot interoperate (ie, compete) without paying you.

Which is actually the point of a patent- it is to grant a limited monopoly to encourage investment. The entire patent system is to create a local non-competitive environment and it doesn't really matter if it is because I created a specific encryption scheme or a next generation battery that makes current battery technology obsolete. Essentially the whole point is to stipulate that no one can monetize your innovation without compensating you. I think you also misconstrue software as the only environment where interoperability matters. During the rise of the railroad specific gauge tracks were patented so that only certain railway car manufacturers could compete. More recently lego patented their brick shape, so knockoffs couldn't make compatible designs. Whenever you have a dominant market position and other people want to work in the same space, you get interoperability issues because being compatible is the only way to compete. If I were collman I couldn't have convinced railway tychoons to lay different gauge tracks, and if I am megablox I can only sell my products if I could only get a foothold by selling my blocks at razor thin margins, because no one wants blocks that won't work with their legos.

quote:

You patent chemical formulas to protect the business investing in the factories and labs necessary to make (not create) the product.

Welcome to the 21st century, where manufacturing is the smallest part of the expense. The cost to make pharma is a minute sliver of money compared to R&D. The point of patents is to encourage innovation- in the 18th century that meant protecting investment in physical manufacturing since that was the largest expense. In the 21st century it means protecting investment in research and development. I by no means advocate bullshit like the 8.3 patents, eht Eolas embedding objects patent, or the wealth of overly broad and vague patents in the industry. Reform needs to happen, and the time to capitalize needs to be adjusted down, but what motivates Microsoft to invest 6 billion a year in research is the same thing that encourages any of pharma to do so, and that is a promise of a patent. The original compromise was that a limited monopoly was an acceptable evil to encourage capitalization- I don't understand why that would be true in 1820 but not true in 2009.

A: There is no such thing as 'IP'. Nobody wants Microsoft's patents. Nobody wants Microsoft's copyright. They would just like the patents to go away.

Exactly. I would also like death, taxes, and cancer to go away, but unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. No amount of acting like children (oooh, I made up a fake insult award to give somebody) will change that.

So, here in the real world, can anyone give any valid business reasons why Microsoft would release a patent that generates revenue and creates a competitive advantage for them?

Tough for those employees then, because Ballmer is the one who calls the shots. And he wastes no opportunity to rattle his patent portfolio at Linux, clearly using it as a FUD tool. He's not breaking any laws in doing so, but it is a bit rich to say Microsoft is doing anything more than PR here in having someone talk at an OSS convention.

Microsoft makes money selling operating systems, among other things. Do you think Ballmer, as a businessman, should encourage Linux to chip away at his company? IBM, Apple, et al only support OSS insofar as it helps their business. I'd venture to say that one or more individuals at Microsoft have realized the strategic advantages to OSS cooperation and participation at events like this are proof of that.

I think Ballmer has every right to protect his company's dominant OS position by any legal means. I don't think he's been doing a very good job of it, but that's a different discussion.

And I'm sure there are true OSS advocates in Microsoft. Bully for them. But given Microsoft's history and Ballmer's ongoing anti-Linux FUD campaign, I don't think it is reasonable to say, "Ramji's presence at the event and participation in the panel reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue with the Linux community." That's giving them too much credit. After they "walk the walk" for a while, I'd be happy to revisit that conclusion.

Look, I'm not even a Linux advocate myself, really. I only piped up because my BS detector went off. I need to see something more substantial than "participation at events like this" before I could accept as 'proven' the notion that Microsoft was willing to cooperate with OSS.

Originally posted by Tundro Walker:It's funny. Your grandmother is allowed to have her secret recipe for apple pie that everybody loves and wants. But nobody likes Microsoft keeping their software a secret. It's just interesting when you apply the logic to different scenarios.

If everyone were content to enjoy Grandma's pies, and others were free to make similar pies, there would be no problem. The problem is that if someone else independently develops a similar pie, Grandma will have them sued into bankruptcy and confiscate their kitchen. Software patents are incompatible with the "live and let live" or the "compete amiably and fairly" that this Msoft guy is pretending the company favors.

Originally posted by jcool:can anyone give any valid business reasons why Microsoft would release a patent that generates revenue and creates a competitive advantage for them?

They've been granted a monopoly so of course they have an advantage, and of course it's not rational to give up an advantage. Why did we grant a convicted monopolist that advantage, though? Did they deserve it?

They've been granted a monopoly so of course they have an advantage, and of course it's not rational to give up an advantage. Why did we grant a convicted monopolist that advantage, though? Did they deserve it?

(i.e. your question is stupid so here's a better one)

Correct. There is no rational reason for them to release the patent. Just whining by the Linux folks because they WANT IT! GIMME! M$ is SOOOO mean!!!111.

What's up with this "convicted monopolist" stuff, anyway? So, they were found to be a monopoly, and had a bunch of restrictions put on them to prevent the specific monopolistic behavior...a long time ago. This suddenly means that they no longer have normal legal protections and rights as a corporation?

Look, I know there's no point arguing with you. You want your free stuff, and you're not going to agree with any pesky laws or rights that would get in the way.

OSS: Give us your IP! We want to use your tech without paying.MS: No. You guys hate us, and want to put us out of business. Why would we do that?OSS: You are such jerks. Freakin trolls.

Let's be a little clearer here. There is no such thing as intellectual property. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are differing legal rights; none of them are property. I'm assuming that you are actually talking about patents, since that is the only thing mentioned.

The FAT long filename patents that are involved here are classic submarine patents. Here is what happened:

There was a demand for being able to use filenames that did not fit into the conventional FAT 8.3 namespace. A few alternative methods were developed to index long filenames to the short 8.3 namespace so that these longer filenames could be used on a FAT formatted medium. Among the methods was one developed by Microsoft. Of course Microsoft included their method with new versions of Windows, while the alternative methods required additional software to be installed on Windows in order to work.

Of course anyone who created hardware or software that could access a FAT formatted medium and wanted to use long filenames could either use the same method as Microsoft and just work with Windows or could use one of the alternative methods and require Windows users to install additional software to interoperate. Since Microsoft encouraged everyone to use their method without revealing that they had even applied for any patents on the method, much less asking any royalties, there seemed no need to use an alternative.

Microsoft knew that if they asserted their patents on their method of using long filenames for FAT, then everyone else would standardize on an alternative method instead, they would eventually be pressured to include the alternative method with Windows, and their own method wouldn't even be useful to them. So, instead, they let everyone use their method without asserting patents until their method had become ubiquitous. Then, in 2003, after everyone who accessed a FAT filesystem using long filenames was already using the Microsoft method of doing so (including open source operating systems, but also any number of other systems), they publicized that they had filed patents on their method and would begin asserting them.

This is, of course, classic submarine patent strategy. You take an otherwise valueless patent (because it can easily be worked around or substituted for), do your best to keep its existence a secret, wait for it to be widely used and depended on by a great number of people (leveraging a virtual monopoly makes this much easier), and then begin asking for royalties or otherwise asserting your patent only after the cost/trouble of dropping the use of the patent is greater than that of acquiescing to your demands.

Is it your position that Microsoft was classy here? Is this your definition of the high road? Do you think that there are any of these other parties that don't resent Microsoft for doing what they did?

I agree that Microsoft should have the same protection under that patent system as anyone else, and that there is no rational reason for them to give patents away. But the whole system could use a swift kick, and CWhitman's point on the 8.3 submarine issue is very valid.

Originally posted by jcool:OSS: Give us your IP! We want to use your tech without paying.MS: No. You guys hate us, and want to put us out of business. Why would we do that?OSS: You are such jerks. Freakin trolls.

quote:

No amount of acting like children (oooh, I made up a fake insult award to give somebody) will change that.

quote:

So, here in the real world

quote:

Just whining by the Linux folks because they WANT IT! GIMME! M$ is SOOOO mean!!!111.

I agree that Microsoft should have the same protection under that patent system as anyone else, and that there is no rational reason for them to give patents away. But the whole system could use a swift kick, and CWhitman's point on the 8.3 submarine issue is very valid.

All without ad hominem attacks! Wow, I'm good.

Fair enough, I am exaggerating their position as childish (although I'm not insulting anyone on the forum.). However, my original point was that handing the guy who showed up to have an intelligent, professional conversation with these guys a "you're a big jerk award" is extremely childish.

As for the whole submarine business, who knows if that was their strategy? These guys have a billion patents...why would they start asserting any of them until they had value? As for stealth, aren't they publicly available?

And either way, what's the point of demonizing them (other than that's the only thing OSS guys know what to do with regards to MS.)? They're acting legally, and in the best interests of their business.

Originally posted by bedward:I think Ballmer has every right to protect his company's dominant OS position by any legal means.

I agree with you in general, but your comment has implications that most people in this forum are arguing about - the law is broken. Just because something is currently legal doesn't mean it's a viable option, and just because something is curently illegal doesn't mean it should be discounted or dismissed.

Making profits by selling bad debts disguised as triple-A rated investments was also legal, but that wasn't a good idea, either.

Some algorithms take huge amounts of r&d that need to be recouped.... Compression, network optimization and multimedia codecs are good examples

Uh, what? Compression? Like LZMA? BZIP? Multimedia codecs? Like Ogg Vorbis and Dirac? How do you even come up with this shit? They have hardly any costs, at most a handful of people part-time, usually mere amateurs. And tons of incentive to innovate, i.e. a free market of competitive interests who want to inter-operate lest they become uncompetitive.

I must repeat you: Uh, what? You seriously, honestly believe these things have been made by "a handful of people part-time, usually mere amateurs"? The various implementations of their specifications maybe, but the originals themselves took a lot more time, from a lot more talented people.

Let's take Vorbis. It was announced by Xiph founder Chris Montgomery in 1998 as an answer to the licensing fees for using mp3. He didn't work alone, but amassed a following of like minded programmers to work on it. It took this group until 2002 before they reached their 1.0 goal (although they had managed to become competitive with mp3 before then). A group of coders continues to improve its performance and quality to this day. But you say "Those are mostly part-time contributors!" And that is true. But they are often professional programmers, employed elsewhere, doing something similar.

But that is not the case with Dirac. Dirac is the product of the R&D department of the BBC, designed and created by a paid, full-time team. The project was announced to the world in January of 2003. They opened up the source in 2004 and asked for contributions. It took them until January of 2008 to finalize the specification. And, even with a final spec, it took until September of that year to release a reference encoder-decoder. To this day, work is still being done to make encoding faster and more efficient, still being done by the BBC's paid programmers.

Now, a less complicated thing like lossless compression does tend to take fewer talented programmers. But, even so, LZMA isn't even the full work of Igor Pavlov; it's a variation of DEFLATE, an algorithm created by Phil Katz in 1993 (which is actually a good showing of the power open source allows for other people to build upon your work). Now, BZIP2 is actually the full work of a single man named Julian Seward, but he's been at it since 1996.

To belittle the effort needed to create viable compression schemes is pure arrogance. It takes time and intelligence to do right. There are hundreds of compression schemes out there, but most aren't worth using, either because they're less efficient or more computationally costly than others. Do I think they should be patented? Not really. I do not believe arrangements of math should be owned.

Originally posted by lorien_the_first_one:No matter how much R&D goes into an algorithm, it's still math. It is still an expression of a law of nature.

Since when was math "a law of nature?" Really now, math is a man-made, deterministic language invented to explain abstract concepts of values. There are things that can be done in math that is impossible in reality. However, due to the fact that reality is deterministic (in that cause follows effect in a predictable manner), we learned how to apply the abstract concepts of math to natural processes. When we discover new laws of nature, we find out how to express them in math. We can even predict laws, by basing the prediction upon models of what we already know. This does not make math a part of nature any more than calling a certain thing "apple" makes English a law of nature. It's a man-made construct, created for our convenience.